TURKISH PARLIAMENT'S HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE: ILL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 002368

SIPDIS


DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE


E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/11/2008
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM TU OSCE
SUBJECT: TURKISH PARLIAMENT'S HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE: ILL
INFORMED AND SO FAR INEFFECTIVE


REF: A. ANKARA 2353

B. ANKARA 1423


Classified by Polcouns John Kunstadter; reasons 1.5 b and d.



1. (C) Summary: The parliamentary Human Rights Committee does
not play a significant role in the development of reform
legislation, and the public comments of its Chairman to date
have focused on supposed human rights violations outside
Turkey. Committee members are generally not well informed on
Turkish human rights issues and lack specific ideas for
promoting reform. Some hold extreme Islamist and
anti-American/xenophobic views. End Summary.



2. (C) The GOT over the past couple of years has adopted
several extensive, bold packages of human rights reform
legislation as part of its drive for EU membership. The
ruling AK Party has continued this effort since coming to
power in the November elections. However, the parliamentary
Human Rights Committee plays virtually no role in this
process. Our meetings with 13 of 25 Committee members
indicate that the Committee is ill-prepared to promote human
rights in Turkey. Here's why:


--------------
Turkish Parliamentarians Are Not Lawmakers
--------------



3. (C) The Committee played virtually no role in drafting or
revising any of the human rights reform packages adopted by
Parliament over the past two years. The drafts were prepared
by MFA officials in consultation with other ministries,
particularly the Justice and Interior ministries. The
parliamentary Constitutional and Justice committees made some
revisions to the drafts, but Human Rights Committee members
acknowledge they did not. Turkish MPs have the right to
introduce legislation, but traditionally the bureaucracy
drafts most bills. Human Rights Committee members do not
appear to have any knowledge of or interest in the
legislative process; none of the members with whom we spoke
has plans to introduce legislation.


--------------
Ineffective Leadership
--------------



4. (C) While the Committee's lack of influence over
legislation is nothing new, the Committee has in the past
served as an effective soap box for promoting human rights
reform. In 2000, Committee Chairwoman Sema Piskinsut
released a series of highly critical reports documenting
torture in prisons and detention centers throughout Turkey.
Prosecutors sought to have her parliamentary immunity removed
in order to prosecute her for refusing to release the names
of her sources. However, current Chairman Mehmet Elkatmis
has so far focused on calling attention to supposed human
rights problems outside Turkey. In his comments to the
press, Elkatmis has:


-- Accused the U.S. and UK of committing "savagery" and a
"massacre" in Iraq and suggested leaders of the two countries
could be tried on war crimes (reftel A).


-- Criticized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.


-- Promised to investigate allegations of unspecified ill
treatment of a Turkish prisoner in Sweden. (Note: A Swedish
diplomat told us the GOT has not responded to Sweden's offer
to transfer him to a Turkish prison. End Note.)


-- Promised to investigate allegations in the Turkish press
that the German Government is conducting medical experiments
on Turkish prisoners. (Note: German diplomats say these
allegations appear to be fueled by recent suicides among
Turkish prisoners in Germany, as well as the fact that asylum
seekers in Germany are required to take a medical exam. One
Committee member told us there were "rumors" that the USG was
using Guantanamo Bay prisoners for medical experiments. End
note.)



5. (C) We have not seen Elkatmis make public statements
calling attention to human rights abuses in Turkey. Elkatmis
denied to us that he is focusing on problems outside Turkey,
noting that the Committee recently visited southeastern
Turkey and will soon release its report on conditions there.
We have not yet seen the report, but Elkatmis told us it
reflects his conclusion that it is now "impossible" to commit
torture in detention centers because cameras have been
installed.



6. (C) The Committee's two vice chairmen do not compensate
for Elkatmis' shortcomings. Cavit Torun, an AK member, holds
the most extreme Islamist and anti-Western views of the
Committee members we've met to date. During our meeting,
Torun accused the USG of supporting the PKK and launched an
anti-American diatribe, deflecting all attempts to address
human rights in Turkey. Mehmet Serif Ertugrul, of the
opposition CHP party, is better informed, but offered no
specific ideas about how the Committee should operate.


--------------
No Focus or Sense of Mission
--------------



7. (C) Many members view the Committee as an NGO-like body
whose role is to serve as the nation's moral conscience,
rather than an element of the government responsible for
making specific contributions to human rights reform in
Turkey. Several averred to us that Committee members are not
GOT representatives, but rather advocates of human rights
worldwide. Some of the AK members are only capable of
discussing human rights in broad Koranic terms addressing the
need for brotherhood among men. They appear to have no
interest in day-to-day human rights matters in Turkey -- one
told us he had never heard of the highly publicized case
against five German democracy foundations (Reftel B),while
another was unaware of an incident involving police beating a
protestor in Ankara on live TV.


--------------
Fear of Outsiders
--------------



8. (C) Some of our Committee interlocutors display the most
extreme symptoms of the classic Turkish fear of all things
foreign. This is particularly problematic in the human
rights field, where Turkey needs to engage the EU, U.S., and
others in order to progress. Two Committee MPs told us they
reject the Western human rights model, only to retreat when
asked whether they support Turkey's EU candidacy (both said
yes). Other views expressed by members include:


-- The Peace Corps volunteers who served in Turkey until the
early 1970's wanted to learn about all elements of Turkish
culture only in order to find weak points to exploit.


-- The U.S. turned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan over to Turkey
not for Turkey's benefit, but only to spare its allies Italy
and Greece the embarrassment of having him on their hands.


-- The Western powers forced Turkey to spend money on the
military during the Cold War in order to protect themselves
and prevent Turkey from developing economically.


--------------
Comment
--------------



9. (C) We will continue to engage Committee members in an
effort to encourage a more constructive, focused approach to
human rights issues.


PEARSON